Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable contextual information beyond that: it specifies the return shape ('references, e.g. {id, resource_type: 'article'}'), names the follow-up tool, and gives the underlying HTTP endpoint. It does not mention pagination or auth requirements, but the read-only safety profile is already covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and output are front-loaded, and the follow-up tool pointer is immediately actionable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly fills that gap by describing the return format. It also directs the agent to kayako_get_article for full content. For a read-only search tool with a fully documented input schema, nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description does not add syntax, defaults, or format details for limit, offset, locale, or query constraints. The phrase 'articles and/or public conversations' loosely maps to the 'in' enum, but this is marginal beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the help center's articles and/or public conversations'), and explicitly routes to kayako_get_article for reading results. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from general search or listing siblings even without naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear usage pattern: use this to find references, then use kayako_get_article to read a full article. It does not state when to prefer it over kayako_search or kayako_list_articles, so no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.